We are quickly approaching "have you stopped beating your wife" at this point.
I don't think it would change anything if they came out and said it wasn't intentional.
Some friends of me got viciously attacked last year over some perceived fraud. They responded by publishing their books sinve they had nothing to hide.
What happened? Story just changed: "They are so crooked they managed to hide it from both the police[0] and a big four accounting company." was tje new story.
[0]: who investigated them for three years, first secretly, then openly after a previous false accusation.
Okay, so what? Should I start adding all the random incidents where people made something that was coincidentally shaped like swastika to the Wikipedia article as examples of modern usage?
> CPAC hasn't come out with a denial that their stage was that shape intentionally.
They did, they called it slanderous.
> slander (noun) - the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation
CPAC cancelled some black dude for anti-semitism. They didn't do that after he was saying anti-Christian and anti-white stuff, only after he started saying that Judaism is illegitimate or whatever. But yes, I'm supposed to believe that they're using Nazi imagery on purpose.
This is exactly how dog whistles work, dude...
I haven't seen anyone picking up that "dog whistle" besides people like you.
edit: search on twitter the phrase "cpac rune based" or "cpac stage based". If it was a dog whistle, I would expect someone to pick up on it and call it "based". Yet the only people who are talking about it are the people who are making those stupid accusations. Literally no one cared about it until you made a big deal out of it. And still barely anyone cares.
Please kill all of my snarky comments in this thread with downvotes, as they were inappropriate and it's a flamewar that has no place on HN.
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/08/12/flags-and-oth...